jdogmoney wrote:I have every intention of complaining until my faith is recognised.

I'm sorry if this comes off as argumentative, I've had a rather long day.

No problem.

Pastafarianism is not a religion, though, by virtue of the fact that Pastafarians are, by nature, two-faced, and, though they profess belief in the FSM, actual belief would kill the 'religion.'

It's a movement.

[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.-Darwin

No, see, to the general public we loudly proclaim our status as a religion.

However, the religion cannot be defended politically, not being an actual religion, so you will make no progress if the teacher should wish to deny your appeal to his sense of satire.

[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.-Darwin

wikipedia wrote:A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

Pastafarianism is a set of beliefs (believing it is wrong to teach ID as a science) we have practices (such as eating pasta and dressing as a pirate) we're (mostly) a human community we adhear to confined beliefs (beleif to not adhear to firm beliefs) we have rituals (dressing like a pirate on fridays) we don't study ancesral traditions writing history nor mythology only because we're new but someday we will. we practice personally and as a group (this forum) and we communicate stemming from the sharred conviction that ID is not a science

PAID FOR BY THE COMMITEE TO HELP PROTECT THE HOMELESS FROM ZOMBIE INVASIONS

When we are speaking of a religion, we usually speak of one that involves a supernatural personage or principle, a faith-verified individual, pantheon, or concept. The other definitions of religion are more poetic, and, while perfectly valid, don't get the same attention from the government.

I'm being lazy and quoting myself from another thread when I say:

As to your points concerning what makes a "real religion," I think I have provided enough evidence to suggest that, because Pastafarianism actively demands a two-faced treatment of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is to say, the advocates of the FSM realize that the FSM is a parody, and maintain Him as such a parody to other people, any such person who has faith in a flying lump of spaghetti is not a Pastafarian, but rather a complete nut.

Pastafarianism seems to require that hypocritical aspect to make preying on people's comprehension of religion and its ridiculous statements so much sweeter.

To summarize: a real religion must have those who actually believe in its doctrines. And belief in the doctrines of Pastafarianism essentially isolates one from Pastafarianism. So even if there are true believers of the FSM, they cannot be considered true Pastafarianisms; ergo, true Pastafarianism will never have a population of those who actually believe in the FSM.

[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.-Darwin

Negative. In all other religions, the adherents actually believe in the principles of the religion.

If you were to actually believe in the FSM, you violate the hypocrisy that makes Pastafarianism, Pastafarianism. This 'religion' sustains itself based on the fact that its followers do not actually believe in His Noodliness.

[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.-Darwin

I'll agree that other people will declare it a cult, because they suffer from the impression that we actually believe in the FSM.

Which we don't. Your "belief" is in the movement of Pastafarianism, that is to say, you entertain the fundamental principle that religion should not be in a scientific classroom. If you begin to actually believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and has a beer volcano in heaven for all pirates, you are no longer part of Pastafarianism, because FSMism demands that its followers express their interest in the FSM as a satire of faith masquerading as objective analysis.

[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.-Darwin

you only think that because the FSM planted those thoughts in your brain to question your faith we know you truely believe EarthRise so does anyone else who claims to not believe with all the evidence (see the graph) that there is an FSM how could you deny it except with false ideas that it is satirical I mean come on

PAID FOR BY THE COMMITEE TO HELP PROTECT THE HOMELESS FROM ZOMBIE INVASIONS

Of course! I admit, you found me out in my lies. I do adamantly believe in a flying wad of pasta!

[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.-Darwin

EarthRise wrote:Negative. In all other religions, the adherents actually believe in the principles of the religion.

We Discordians don't really believe in Eris and we all have our own beliefs and ideas about Discordianism.

We use the goddess as a metaphor for the chaos and strife to be found in the world.

Ergo, it's classification of a 'parody religion.'

Davedim wrote:Discordianism is still a religion by definition.

Mm. There's a good deal of vague inclinations in defining religions. When most people speak of religion, they speak of believers following a deity.

Poetic religion, less rigid, refers to the set of principles and teachings to which one might adhere, as is the case of the "Religion of Science," or the "Religion of Pastafarianism," or, if I may be so bold, the "Religion of Discordianism."

[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.-Darwin